Tripura High Court
Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd vs Union Of India on 9 April, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 39 of 2024
Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd.
A company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at PO- Sadhanashram, Kailashahar,
Dist- Unakoti, Tripura, PIN-799277
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Service through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs 10 Janpath Road, North
Block, Central Secretariat, Janpath Road Areas, Motilal Nehru Marg Area, New
Delhi-110001
2. The Director (BM1), Ministry of Home Affairs (Border Management Division,)
having his office at Room no 20,2nd floor, Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium,
India Gate, New Delhi-110001
3. The Chief Secretary Govt. of Tripura New Secretariat Agartala, Tripura
4. The State of Tripura, Service through the Secretary, Ministry of Revenue
Government of Tripura, having his office at New Secretariat, Agartala
5. The District Magistrate and Collector, District- Unakoti, PO- Gournagar,
Kailashahar, Tripura-799277
6. The Land Acquisition Collector, Gournagar, Kailashahar, District- Unakoti,
Tripura-799277;
7. Sub - Divisional Magistrate, Kailasahar, Dist: Unakoti, Tripura -799277
8. NBCC (India) Limited (formerly known as The National Building Construction
Corporation Limited) service through the Chairman cum Managing Director, having
his office at NBCC House, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
9. The General Manager, NBCC (India) Limited (formerly known as The. National
Building Construction Corporation Limited), SBG- NER having his office at NBCC
House, 6th Floor, West End Block, Housefed Complex, Dispur, Guwahati- 781006.
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Advocate.
Ms. P. Shreeagarwal, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate.
Mr. K. K. Pal, Advocate.
Mr. P. Gautam, Sr. GA.
Date of hearing and date of
judgment and order : 09.04.2025
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
[2] This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
seeking the following relief(s):
a) Admit the writ petition and issue notice upon the respondents and/or each of
them directing them to transmit all relevant records pertaining to this case
before this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice may be administered.
b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus or of similar nature be issued directing the
respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1703271827/- (Rs. One hundred seventy crore
thirty two lakhs seventy one thousand eight hundred twenty seven only) as
awarded in the award dated 25.03.2021.
c) Interim order be passed directing the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tripura, New
Secretariat, Agartala, Tripura (Respondent No. 3) and also other respondents
to file a report before this Hon'ble Court together with details the
bank/Treasury/ of all RBI Accounts maintained by Govt. of Tripura, Ministry
of Home Affairs, Govt. of India and also M/s. NBCC India Ltd., Head Office
New Delhi and Regional Office -Guwahati within 15 days from the date of
Order.
d) Interim order be passed to attach the awarded amount as in para B above in
terms of prayer above from the proceeds of Bank/Treasury/ RBI Accounts
maintained by the respondents and necessary order be passed for remittance
of the same to the following account of Petitioner.
Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd.
ICICI Bank
A/C No. 216805000814
IFSC: ICIC0002168
Kailasahar Branch,
Kailasahar:
District: Unakoti
e) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (a) to (d) herein above.
f) Allow cost of the petition and incidental charges.
g) Any other order and further orders as your Lordship may deem fit & proper
[3] It is submitted by Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, learned counsel for the
petitioner that that the petitioner M/s. Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd. has taken about
2100 acres of land on lease for a period of 99 years from M/s. Dilkhusa Tea Co.
Ltd. in the year 1997-98 and is in a possession of the said land from that period. The
land is situated near border with Bangladesh.
[4] In or around 2005, Notification under Section 4 and under Section 6
was published by Revenue Department, Government of Tripura for acquisition of
18.31 acres of land belonging to petitioner for the purpose of construction of barbed
wire fencing (150 mtrs inside the zero line between Indo-Bangladesh Border as per
accord between India and Bangladesh) and thereafter notice under Section 9 was
received on 26.09.2005 for submission of claim on 20.10.2005. The petitioner
submitted its claim on 20.10.2005 and amended the same on 28.10.2005. Since
about 225.80 acres of land of the petitioner went on the other side of border fencing
(In between zero line and IBB fencing), the petitioner in its claim dated 20.10.2005
claimed compensation land on the other side of fencing and for trees/bamboos
therein since due to construction of fencing and only few gates were constructed,
the petitioner was of firm believe that extraction of timber from the other side of
border fencing may not be possible.
[5] It is further stated that the petitioner sent a representation to DM &
Collector, Gournagar, Kailasahar, Dist. Unakoti for arranging to extract the timber
from the other side of border fencing to save them from national loss and Learned
DM & Collector, Gournagar, Kailasahar, Dist. Unakoti vide its letter dated
01.06.2005 sought approval from Revenue Department, Government of Tripura to
conduct survey of assets on the land through forest department and bare land with
the official of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kailasahar to compensate your petitioner
for the loss suffered, but since no approval was received from Revenue
Department, Government of Tripura, the matter of survey was dropped by office of
DM and Collector, although pursued by petitioner.
[6] The petitioner all alone asking the authorities to extract the
trees/bamboos on the other side of border fencing which was the target of
Bangladeshi criminals/miscreants and the random theft continued.
[7] After getting no response from Authorities, in or around 2016, Writ
Petition No. 1381 of 2016 was filed and in the said writ petition, Judgment and
Order dated 05.01.2021 was passed by this Court directing Land Acquisition
Collector, Gournagar, Kailasahar, Dist. Unakoti to survey/enquire and assess the
loss of land and the asset on the other side of border fencing due to construction of
IBB Fencing through competent authorities and pass award and pay the
compensation within 4 months from the date of serving the Judgment and Order
dated 05.01.2021 in the office of Land Acquisition Collector, Gournagar,
Kailasahar, Dist. Unakoti.
[8] The relevant portion of the said judgment dated 05.01.2021 is
extracted herein below:
[9] Having read the entire reply of the respondents No.2-6 it appears that
no specific reply to the allegation has been made by the petitioner. The
reply, on the other hand, is totally evasive and not relating to the specific
allegations. Thus, this court is of the view that if the land is severed for
reason of acquisition and construction of the IBB fencing, the petitioner
has a right to get compensation for the damage which has occurred for
severance of the land in terms of the said provision of law as reproduced
above. It appears that the respondents have failed to produce a chit of
paper in this regard. The cumulative effect of such observations is that
there should be a serious exercise for determining the damage which has
been caused by severance. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector,
Unakoti District is directed to cause survey by the technically sound
persons to determine the land which has been severed for construction of
the IBB fencing. The damage shall be assessed ascertaining the value of
the land and the damage that has been caused for acquisition. It is clearly
mentioned that this court has not endorsed to any fact to be considered.
The Land Acquisition Collector shall exercise his statutory power for
determining the damage including the damage caused by severance.
[10] Taking a holistic view of that aspect, it is directed that within 4(four)
months from the date on which the petitioner shall supply a copy of this
order to the Land Acquisition Collector, Unakoti District, the said exercise
as indicated above, shall be completed and the payment be made in terms
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 if it is so ascertained.
[9] To comply with the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2021, land
Acquisition Collector, Gournagar, Kailasahar, Dist. Unakoti directed Sub-
Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Kailasahar to assess the
loss and on receipt of reports passed award in favour petitioner and also for the
lessor M/s. Dilkhusa Tea Co. Ltd. and thereafter demanded awarded money from
acquiring agency.
[10] The respondents filed a Writ Appeal No. 268 of 2021 against the
Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2021 which was dismissed by the Division Bench
by order dated 28.09.2022 with a direction to comply the Judgment & Order dated
05.01.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1381 of 2016 and pay the awarded amount
within 6 months from the date of Judgment & Order.
[11] For ready reference, the relevant portion of the judgment and order
dated 28.09.2022 passed in WA 268 of 2021 is reproduced herein below:
[25] The learned Single Judge has categorically held that the severance of
land has occurred solely for the reason of acquisition of land and
construction of IBB fencing and therefore, the petitioner has a right to get
compensation for the damage which has occurred for severance of the
land in terms of the provision of law. Since the work of assessment of
compensation for the severed land was not undertaken, learned Single
Judge directed the Land Acquisition Collector, Unakoti District to cause
survey by technically sound persons to survey the land which has been
severed for construction of IBB fencing and assess the damages
ascertaining the value of the land in exercise of the statutory power of the
LA Collector and make payment of compensation in terms of the Land
Acquisition Act,1894 within a period of 4 months from the date of
communication of the order of the learned Single Judge to the LA
Collector of Unakoti District by the writ petitioner.
[26] Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 contemplates that for
determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired
under the Act, damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the
time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing
such land from his other land shall also be taken into consideration.
Therefore, the writ petitioner is, undoubtedly, entitled to compensation for
severance of land arising out of the land acquisition for construction of
barbed wire fencing at the Indo-Bangladesh border particularly when the
fact of severance of land has not been controverted by the state.
Apparently, the writ petitioner has lost the utility of the severed land for
all purposes as a result of the stalling of his free movement to the severed
land.
[27] For the reasons stated above, we find no infirmity in the judgment of
the learned single Judge. Resultantly the appeal stands dismissed.
Appellants are directed to comply with the judgment of the learned Single
Judge within a period of 6 months from today."
[12] Since the payment of awarded amount was not paid even after 6
months contempt petition No. 68 of 2023 was filed which is pending. Thereafter,
the state respondents filed review petition no 39 of 2023 on 26-05- 2023 against the
Judgment and order dated 28-09-2022 which was tagged with Cont Case (C) 68 of
2023 filed by the petitioner herein. However the state respondents withdrew the
Review petition no 39 of 2023 on 20-12-2023.
[13] Aggrieved by the order in contempt, the petitioner preferred an SLP
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being SLP(C) no. 20856 of 2024 and the same
was taken on record and interim stay has been granted on 06.09.2024. Since the said
SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the learned counsel for the
petitioner argues by way of filing the writ petition that the respondents be directed
to pay the compensation by executing the Order dated 05.01.2021 passed by Single
Judge & also Judgment and order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Division Bench
of this court.
[14] On the contrary, Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits before this court that there is a direction dated 14.08.2024 of
this court passed in WP(C) 268 of 2023 stating that the petitioner does not have any
locus and cannot claim any compensation. They are not lawful owners and has no
authority to claim the compensation since they are not entitled.
[15] For ready reference, the relevant portion of the order dated
14.08.2024 is reproduced herein under:
[39] It is reasonably construed that all land in a State is the property of a
State unless it is claimed under lawful alienable title. The series of
proceedings which relate to exemption, withdrawal of exemptions, are
noticed by this Court that they have not dealt with the issue of ownership
and there is no reference as to how the petitioners claimed ownership on
the said properties. Unless the petitioners establish that he is the owner of
the said land, it is not open for him to claim equities. Insofar as the
contention that petitioner No.1 has granted long lease in favour of
petitioner No.2 is concerned, petitioner No.1 cannot transfer a better title
upon petitioner No.2, when petitioner No.1 itself is not having a proven
lawful alienable title. The said proposition is settled law.
[40] Insofar as the change of entries in the khatian by replacing the name
of the petitioners with the government as owner is concerned, this Court is
of the view that no notice is required and there is no violation of principle
of natural justice since the petitioners were already represented before
this Court in earlier round of litigation and in pursuance of the same,
consequential steps have been initiated by the respondents in changing the
entries in the Record of Right i.e. the Khatian.
[41] Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
[42] However, in the event, if the petitioners feel that they are the lawful
owners of the said property, they shall approach before the Revenue
Secretary on or before 31.08.2024 and submit relevant documents i.e. title
deed enabling the Revenue Secretary for taking appropriate steps in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
[43] In the light of the above, the present petition stands dismissed. As
sequel, miscellaneous application, pending if any, shall stand closed.
[16] The petitioner has taken the lease of the subject land from M/s.
Dilkhusa Tea Co. Ltd. who is not the lawful owner of the land. Even the M/s
Dilkhusa Tea Col Ltd. does not have any ownership or alienable right. Therefore,
the petitioner herein (Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd.) cannot have any better position
for claiming any demand upon the land or the Tea Garden for the so called damages
or loss.
[17] The subject land belongs to government and any person/company
without any authority if enters into the land, these actions attract trespass and are
liable for criminal prosecution but not for making a request for claiming
compensation.
[18] The petitioner had approached earlier before this court by way of
filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 1381 of 2016 and the same was dismissed by
the order dated 05.01.2021on the ground that both the writ petitioners (i.e. 1. M/s
Dilkhusa Tea Co. Ltd. & 2. M/s Fortuna Agro Plantation Ltd.) are not the lawful
owners. However, this court granted an opportunity to the petitioners to approach
before the Revenue Secretary on or before 31.08.2024 and submit relevant
documents i.e. title deed enabling the Revenue Secretary for taking appropriate
steps in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. But they have not
approached the respondents with the documents.
[19] A writ appeal being Writ Appeal No. 118 of 2024 against the said
order dated 14.08.2024 in WP(C) 268 of 2023 was filed and the said appeal has
been admitted and is still pending before a Division Bench of this Court. No interim
orders are granted.
[20] Since there is no positive direction so far in favour of the petitioner
holding them as the lawful owner or lawfully entitled of any such land or trees,
there cannot be any claim for compensation.
[21] Heard both sides.
[22] The prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the
respondents be directed to pay the amount of awarded dated 25.03.2021 to the
petitioner by fixing a definite time frame. It is seen from the record that no
claim/demand is made by the petitioner before the respondents asking them to pay
the loss/damages that have been sustained by them and accordingly the petitioner is
entitled for such compensation. It also surfaces from the record that there is no
impugned order in the present writ petition which is under challenge.
[23] Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner in all
fairness submits before this court that the instant writ petition itself would not
survive since there is no impugned order and since there is no impugned action
from the end of the respondents which can be held as unjust and direction be issued
upon the respondents.
[24] He further submits that the subject matter is pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP No. 20856 of 2024 and therefore no order needs
to be passed.
[25] As stated (supra), since there is no impugned action or no impugned
order under challenge, mandamus cannot be issued. It is also not for the writ court
to assess the damages that is caused and to award compensation as disputed
question of facts are involved with regard to the ownership, trespass, damages
occurred as projected by the petitioner. Writ itself is not maintainable.
[26] This court is of the view that this is purely a frivolous and a chance
litigation and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
[27] The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. a sum of Rs.50,000/-
to the High Court Employees' Association, High Court of Tripura and Rs.50,000/-
to the High Court Bar Association, High Court of Tripura, Agartala. The said
amount shall be deposited on or before 10.05.2025.
[28] This court has not hesitation to hold that the petitioner has failed to
make out his case and thus it is not a fit case to be entertained under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India under the writ jurisdiction. The case being devoid of merit
is liable to be dismissed.
[29] With the above observation and direction, this present writ petition
stands dismissed. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands closed.
Copy of this order be furnished to the President of High Court Bar
Association and President of the High Court Employees Association.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK DAS Date: 2025.04.11
